Hi,
Retitled to make clear that it's _this_ week we're talking about.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner at NetSilicon.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 4:31 PM
To: wbmm at pwg.org
Subject: RE: WBMM> 21 August WBMM Conference Call
Greetings:
Reminder about this week's WBMM conference call, on Wednesday. I understand
that Harry will not be able to set up a WebEX-like capability so I
suggest that you pull copies of the documents identified below from the PWG
site and the HP site.
Time:12:00 PM EDT (9:00 AM PDT) Wednesday August 27 2003
Call-in US Toll-free: 1-877-874-5524
Call-in International/Toll: 1-712-455-8420
Participant Identification number: 497478
The primary subject is a consideration of the objectives of WBMM (as
represented in the charter, which has been approved) relative to the Web
Services Management Framework (WSMF) that is being developed by HP.
Bob Tailor responded to a query about WSMF versus WBMM as follows:
"HP does believe strongly in the WSMF as a basis for standards for the
management of web services. We do expect management of printers, MFPs and
print services to move in this direction over time."
I would ask that interested participants review the extensive (albeit
somewhat abstract) information on WSMF at
http://devresource.hp.com/drc/specifications/wsmf/index.jsp
This information declares that WSMF is "model neutral", indeed stating
that, "in the future, further examples and white papers will be provided on
how the management information from specific models like MIB/SNMP, CIM/WBEM,
and JMX/JSR77 to WSMF can be achieved." This would suggest that WBMM efforts
on further defining an imaging management model may be compatible with
WSMF, or whatever the framework may evolve into.
Yet, it is unclear that the rest of the framework fully addresses the
scenarios that WBMM has defined, although it seems geared up to address
some much more complicated use cases.
I have also reworked the WBMM "definitions" document and would suggest
this as an outline for a partitioning the WBMM effort. Indeed, depending
upon our take on WSMF, some of the partitions may be covered there and
need not be addressed by the PWG
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wbmm/white/definitions2.pdf
The WBMM working group objective is to provide a standard way to address
the uses cases in the WBMM scenario. We intend neither to arbitrarily
fight WSMF nor to passively give way to it. WSMF is, as one would expect,
not imaging specific. On one hand, this is positive in that it may become
an accepted framework upon which a specific imaging model may be hung. On
the other hand, as in past cases, it may hampered by non-imaging folks
simplistic view of what imaging and imaging "object" management entails.
And this relates not only to the management model but to the operations
and delivery.
We would very much appreciate your take on this development, which
illustrates the important of defining a consistent Web Based management
approach, but may wind up evolving into a late and suboptimal solution for
imaging devises and services.
Many thanks
Bill Wagner